User talk:31dot/Archive2011
For older conversations, see the pre-admin archive and the 2009 archive. Trimming summaries and how long should they be Ah, I see the guideline now. In Memory Alpha:Editing guidelines. By the way, does trimming a plot summary require the original text be moved to talk? I'd think not, as that's more rewriting than simple removal. Is there a suggestion for how long or detailed plots should be? I looked at a few FAs. Dark Frontier is roughly 23 pgs and The Thaw 12 pgs on my screen. Whereas Broken Bow and Star Trek First Contact are 7 pgs. Setacourse 22:07, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :In my opinion (just my opinion, you might want to ask around :) ) a rewrite that simply changes wording or other minor things doesn't need to be copied to the talk page, it just needs to be noted in the summary what happened. I don't even think single sentences need to be copied over unless they are controversial or in dispute. In general, only the outright removal of a passage should be moved to the talk page. :I think that the episode summaries should be detailed enough to provide a general idea of the events of the episode, but they do not need to note every minute action, quote, or detail. For example, I know I edited a lot of Voyager summaries to remove name, title, and race of all the major characters in those summaries- this information doesn't need to be on every page. I don't know how helpful that is. :I'm not sure I can say they should be a certain length in pages other than to say the longer episodes should have longer summaries.--31dot 22:35, December 8, 2009 (UTC) :I would add that there might be instances where similarly long episodes might have summaries of different lengths, which could depend on what happened in the episode, but there are probably instances here where some summaries are long just because they are long. I think a good guide is if the summary takes almost as long to read as to see the episode, it's too long. I've seen that here.--31dot 22:39, December 8, 2009 (UTC) ::In my view summaries should not replace watching the show. They should be more along the lines of a helpful guide while watching the show to give you the information that might be unclear or give you a link to that new race that was mentioned or what ever. With regards to rewrites yes changes to text should not be copied to the talk page I don't even think quotes should be as they're quotes and can easily be replaced (but it seems I'm alone on that one) — Morder (talk) 23:07, December 8, 2009 (UTC) I agree with most everything said, as it comes across as common sense to me. I just didn't know if there was a rule or guideline for plot detail, as I thought "Reference deleted content on the talk page" was more a custom or courtesy until 31dot strongly implied it was a rule. By the way, should "If you find false information in an article, mention it on the talk page and describe the corrections – because if one person believed it was true, chances are someone else believed it was true, too." be changed to "If you delete something in an article, mention it on the talk page and describe the corrections - because if one person added it, chances are others will too." Most things deleted (and moved to talk) aren't false. They're non-canon, speculation, badly sourced or unnecessary. Setacourse 18:54, December 9, 2009 (UTC) :I would recommend that you bring that up on the editing guidelines talk page, so it's more visible.--31dot 20:06, December 9, 2009 (UTC) ::Good point. Done. And I changed my proposed wording slightly too, though I'm not married to it. Setacourse 22:19, December 9, 2009 (UTC) NO! no! don't give him fuel! :) This person has been trouble before and even called me "libelous". (which if he was any kind of smarts he would know that the legal term only applies if I've irreparably damaged his character - which I didn't) Ignoring him would probably be the best solution as it's clear he isn't going to let this site be. — Morder (talk) 02:38, December 9, 2009 (UTC) :You're right, I won't comment on it again. I reviewed his talk page after I posted and saw that. This person seems to think they're an attorney or something, but as you say they're way off. You didn't even say anything bad.--31dot 02:43, December 9, 2009 (UTC) I wasn't even going to sign for the anon but I figured someone else would and reply which is why I signed away...hoping nobody else would care. Oh well...just something we'll have to deal with... :) — Morder (talk) 02:45, December 9, 2009 (UTC) I disagree I don't think Garak was a minor character in DS9. I think he was in a lot of episodes and played a sufficient part to be notified as not a minor character. Also, why Q? He's just plain, and simply annoying. :By "minor" I mean not a main cast member. --31dot 21:14, December 10, 2009 (UTC) Questions And Comments: Could you please leave, at least, the quote about Riker addressing Argyle?????? I have watched this episode, many times (most recent is last week) And I know, that that is the Correct line. What policy fobids that?! As for the speculations, I see them everywhere on this site. They are itallic and in boxes. In-Correct 23:47, December 10, 2009 (UTC) :If you see any uncited speculations it only means that we have not gotten around to removing them yet, or they can be backed up with evidence, such as a statement from a cast or crew member, or other evidence. This prevents the articles from being loaded down with fan-based speculations, which would overrun the site. :The quote is fine, I removed it inadvertently.--31dot 00:17, December 11, 2009 (UTC) Category Heh, didn't even give me a chance to delete it. :) — Morder (talk) 11:05, December 18, 2009 (UTC) :Sorry. :) I saw the category before I saw you had already removed it from the pages. Timing.......--31dot 11:07, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Yeah, someone should have "talked" to the anon already since he's created the category several times. I think I'll "deleted pages" it. — Morder (talk) 11:09, December 18, 2009 (UTC) :Good idea. If we were going to create a category about that (I'm not convinced on that yet) I don't think that would be the name that would be agreed upon.--31dot 11:13, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Agreed. — Morder (talk) 11:14, December 18, 2009 (UTC) Galaxy-class removal by IP That IP is a dynamic one, also adding that the Intrepid-class Bellerophon participated in major battles in DS9 (when I'm basically 100% sure it was only seen/mentioned in 1 DS9 episode, and no battle) on half a dozen pages without edit summary. I left him a message on yesterday's IP User_talk:78.1.249.119. Maybe he didn't see it, but him blindly reverting helps no one. I see you've just locked Galaxy-class. Good. He was removing info Dec 1 too. Just wondering if I should leave him a message at his new IP, whether the other articles should be locked, or anything else done. Setacourse 02:52, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :Back in a sec....--31dot 03:06, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :OK, I blocked them to stop their spree for now. I might post some sort of message on his other IP, if only to let others know what they've done. Thanks for reverting some of that stuff. :) --31dot 03:09, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :I see you put a little message there yesterday, that should work for now.--31dot 03:12, December 26, 2009 (UTC) You're welcome, and cool. Setacourse 03:15, December 26, 2009 (UTC) Block of 78.3.12.180 I think the block of this anon is unfair. No one made any attempt to contact this anon or help them improve their editing until you sent them the warning at 22:44. The anon's last edit was more than an hour before you sent them a warning, at 21:40, yet despite the fact that they had not continued with poor editing after your initial warning, you blocked the anon for three days. This seems entirely unwarranted, especially considering the edits seem to have been made in good faith, based on a belief that Admiral Ross was using Bellerophon as his flagship throughout the war. These were not porn links, vulgarity, or whatever, yet you blocked them without waiting to see if they had learned from your warning. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:34, December 26, 2009 (UTC) :If you'll read the above discussion and look for yourself, you will see that not only did I warn them, but Setacourse did as well under their other dynamic IP address. I did not block them becuase of poor editing, I blocked them to prevent having to follow them everywhere cleaning up after them and if they had posted on their talk page or explained themselves I would have lifted the block that instant. As it is now I will lift it because it is over with.--31dot 11:49, December 26, 2009 (UTC) Your warning to the anon mentioned nothing about alt accounts, and an editor being blocked should not have to search other users talk pages to figure out what is going on. It should be on their talk page. Regardless of that, you still blocked them after giving them a warning, and they had halted their behavior. None of the alt accounts had made vandalistic edits or violated the warning in the time between the warning and your multi-day block. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:59, December 27, 2009 (UTC) ::The big issue is that the same guy came back on 8 different IPs over the last 3 weeks (or so). Most (all?) of his additions have been deleted. Chasing them all around to link them all together would be a huge pain. Sometimes a quick block is the best way to get someone's attention. In that case, it's best to throw up a quick block with a "read and respond on your talk page" note. -- sulfur 18:03, December 27, 2009 (UTC) Which I would have been fine with, but that isn't what was done here. He was told to stop misbehaving or it would be treated as vandalism, then blocked after he'd not done anything else. For all intents and purposes, he had "stopped." While this is likely because they just weren't online, it doesn't matter. They had not continued to take action in violation of their warning. No one had even tried to contact them before this to begin with. I'm not asking that all of their accounts be "collected and linked together," but there isn't even a mention of alt account use on this persons warning. All that happened was he was given a warning, and and half an hour later, after no violation of the warning and no further editing under any IP address, blocked for no continued activity. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:10, December 27, 2009 (UTC) :I didn't think I needed to tell someone who is using multiple IPs that they are using multiple IP's- they either know this or are oblivious to it and won't care. I instituted the block, as Sulfur said, to get the person's attention more than anything else, but I have seen instances where a person will come back after that amount of time or slightly longer. I'll also note that the day after I lifted the block he did it again.--31dot 22:20, December 27, 2009 (UTC) Why I don't use Preview, but do multiple edits I cannot use the Preview button instead of doing multiple edits. That is because I often decide to do an edit, then change my mind later and decide to do another edit. Also, I usually read the article, and while reading it, I also proofread it. I cannot read the article in Preview mode; it is not comfortable. Sorry if this causes you some minor inconvenience. -- 07:36, January 26, 2010 (UTC) :I would suggest that you find a way to become comfortable with it, as it exists precisely to see what something looks like in case you change your mind. I notice that it took you four edits just to write your message, Preview would have helped you here. I'm not sure how it is any more difficult to read the article in Preview than after you save your edit- they look the same. :No one can make you do it, but if you do not others will comment on it as well.--31dot 10:46, January 26, 2010 (UTC) Image order RE: revert. There is no policy, guideline or concensus on which image gets priority. --Alan 13:59, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :Okay, I know it's been discussed somewhere, which I will try to find..........but anyway, are you saying it doesn't make sense to have the most recent image first?--31dot 14:13, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not sure where that discussion is- it might have had to do with simply having more than one image in the sidebar but I know this subject or something similar has been mentioned before. I guess I just saw no reason to change it from the way it was- but since I can't prove what I've said I changed it back.--31dot 14:32, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::At the very least, the fact that all TOS sidebars look alike has been construed as implicit consensus in 2007 already: Template talk:Sidebar character. I believe there are even earlier discussions than that. Having a different order just for TOS character has never made too much sense to me, but there you go. Maybe another thing to discuss while we're scrutinizing sidebars already. -- Cid Highwind 14:33, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::I know between Morder and I, we had switched all the TOS images to having the most recent one on top, and Morder had mentioned that it was discussed before as well, so he might know where. This should definitely be discussed now though, since it keeps coming up and we've put pretty much everything else on the table anyways. - 14:58, February 9, 2010 (UTC) PfD for article templates In a way, that covered all of the article templates. So, the intent was for the discussion to expand to those (assuming consensus was reached). Just FYI. -- sulfur 02:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :That's cool. Cid had said he was going to bring them up individually, which I took to mean seperate pages. But a simple expansion is better. :) --31dot 11:11, February 15, 2010 (UTC) :Meant to say that I'm not exactly sure what those pages might be, but I did un-archive the page so they can be brought up.--31dot 11:22, February 15, 2010 (UTC) Deletion Well, whatever. I only created it because I couldn't remember Carey's first name, and because the search feature on Memory Alpha is so poor, I had a very hard time finding the article on him without it.--Antodav 02:28, February 24, 2010 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for your comment - I just wanted to inform you that I removed each quote in a separate edit on purpose. The purpose was that of letting everyone feel free to revert specific edits if there's any good reason. Yet I agree that maybe that wasn't the right choice considering the increasing size of the database. I think I'll opt for some sort of happy medium the next time I'll edit an article. Landis Hello, I am the actress Deborah Landis and I was trying to edit/correct the information here on me because I was originally hired as a Cairn with a line. I did speak but it was cut in editing. Also I no longer go by the other name of Valerie Ryan. If I did something wrong I am sorry , but I thought I was free to correct incorrect, information, Deborah Landis :Please accept my apology for the misunderstanding. I will change the information as you have stated. I think that it was reverted by the other users because no explanation was given in the edit summary or on the article's talk page (which you might not have been aware of) I would suggest that any further discussion about it take place there. Again, my apologies. --31dot 23:45, March 20, 2010 (UTC) Merging I was wondering if you could give me some help with this. I've done a couple of test merges following the instructions . While the page histories seem to merge OK, the old pages text ends up as the one on the page after the merge, which is not what is suppose to happen, I think. - 00:39, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :If you've done what I think :) you need to go back into the history and restore the version that you want. If you entered the text being merged before the merge, you will want to find that edit and save it. It will warn you you are editing an old version(since it's not the most current) but that's what you want.--31dot 00:43, March 25, 2010 (UTC) I though as much. Just making sure since I don't remember seeing anyone else do it like that, but I guess if it works, don't fix it. Thanks. :) - 00:50, March 25, 2010 (UTC) :Sulfur explained it to me that way, and just changed the Help:Merge page to match, so it's just starting to make its way around. It's not you. :) --31dot 01:00, March 25, 2010 (UTC) new at this thankyou for your feedback - I'm new and very much estranged to the order of things on wikia regarding "talk pages" etc - i thought it was for commentary, but if you have any suggestions where I can submit my personal reviews I'm open to them, thanks! sorry, this is the only way I could find how to write back to you – Steph6n 10:47, March 30, 2010 (UTC) Dipute process? I do not believe my comment about the mic boom constitutes nitpicking. Is there an admin I can appeal to? :You are already doing so, as I am one. Anyway, if you wish you can discuss it on the talk page for the article. As you will see, there is already a section about this comment. I will say that as a community we made a decision that production errors such as boom mike appearances were nitpicks and not noteworthy, unless such errors have been discussed by a member of the cast or crew. I would encourage you to review the policy on nitpicks for more information.--31dot 22:59, April 3, 2010 (UTC) Recommendation of Fan Forum? Can you please recommend an appropriate fan forum for posting a "wish list" related to the Star Trek sequel due out in 2012? Many sincere thanks - Winn cochrane 18:28, April 6, 2010 (UTC) :TrekBBS is likely the best outlet. I believe that they already have a forum for that. -- sulfur 18:33, April 6, 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia links Star Trek episode articles should not link to wikipedia. There is no way the Wikipedia article would be more detailed, at least it shouldn't. Other topics that have non-Trek aspects may have Wikipedia links, but not every page should have a Wikipedia link. This discussion has occurred before, but I haven't found it. --bp 18:46, April 6, 2010 (UTC) :I will keep an eye out for this prior discussion as well, but as of right now I don't see the harm in having such a link, although if most episodes don't have them then we probably shouldn't. I've skimmed some episodes and notice that it seems to be mostly DS9 episodes that have them- some VOY episodes have StarTrek.com links as well. If we don't have wikipedia then we shouldn't have that, either.--31dot 18:54, April 6, 2010 (UTC) There have been a few discussions about links to scripts or transcripts, startrek.com, and Wikipedia. It seems that some episode pages have had WP links added recently with MB links. The WP links are the easiest to justify excluding, since wikipedia is more general than this Star Trek wiki, there should never be more information there than exists here, for episodes, and most Trek topics that are not real topics. --bp 18:59, April 6, 2010 (UTC) TOS Nitpicks Thanks for getting those, I was just about to revert the edits myself. Especially the last one makes me wonder whether there's some Repository of Silly TOS Background Notes somewhere all these people draw from...– Cleanse ( talk | ) 07:59, April 19, 2010 (UTC) :There could be.... ;) --31dot 08:06, April 19, 2010 (UTC) I read it backwards... ...but he can't spell. :) As an aside User:Redrom is probably supposed to be my name backwards... — Morder (talk) 23:42, April 23, 2010 (UTC) :LOL. I guess mine would be tod13.........--31dot 23:50, April 23, 2010 (UTC) Doug Drexler's blog link Moved it where? I thought it was valuable info. There's far too much to post. :It is valuable, which is why I moved it to its own section, "External Link". Unless there is going to be some Story or Production information included, simply having a link is not such information in and of itself.--31dot 15:15, May 1, 2010 (UTC) About Shatner Follow up on the previous article, has Shatner been seen (interviewed) on the DVD of Voyager or Enterprise? I have the DVD of TNG and DS9 and I didn't recall him being interviewed. :I don't believe he was; nothing included on the DVDs of Enterprise, I think.--31dot 22:39, May 6, 2010 (UTC) Images Are we allowed to take images directly from TrekCore? Is there any copyright issue taking images from another website, or is it fair use since they come directly from the episodes? -Angry Future Romulan 21:32, May 7, 2010 (UTC) :I'm not entirely sure- if the images are from episodes/movies then they don't own them either, so they can't claim the copyright; but I don't know how the source being another party affects the situation. Probably Cid, Sulfur, or Shran would know a little better than I would.--31dot 21:36, May 7, 2010 (UTC) Re: Deleted time stamp Sorry, I was unaware I deleted one. Will (Talk - ) 00:05, May 9, 2010 (UTC) Assimilation I noticed that you reverted the edits I made last night. Care to explain why? ' 23:46, May 13, 2010 (UTC)' :Because it was speculation, which is not permitted in articles.--31dot 23:50, May 13, 2010 (UTC) IAMD Update Hi, 31dot. I see you conditionally supported the removal of featured article last year, on the condition that the summary be made shorter. I'd therefore like to let you know that not only has the summary been considerably shortened but also a lot more background info has been added to the article, which has been duly renominated for FA status. --Defiant 04:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks for the update. :) --31dot 09:50, May 17, 2010 (UTC) Auction Here is the url: http://www.propworx.com/star-trek-auction-catalog for the link to the auction. You will need an Adobe Acrobat reader for the document itself.– Throwback 04:48, May 29, 2010 (UTC) Tense I think it's funny you brought this up because stars can also be destroyed or blown up. That policy always seemed odd to me that stars are considered eternal. We could probably use a slight text change to explain it better. :) — Morder (talk) 12:43, June 14, 2010 (UTC) :Yes, we know that. That POV discussion lasted almost 8 months all told. The current POV wording was the best compromise that we could come up with, despite having a star blown up in Generations. *sigh* -- sulfur 12:46, June 14, 2010 (UTC) ::It's funny- I thought of that after I wrote it, and thought about changing my comment, but figured that user would figure it out(you guys just beat him). Technically, even the entire universe is not eternal (discussed in ) so it seems we have to draw a line somewhere- we should probably leave the gist of the comment alone, but maybe reword it slightly. When I have some time I might review that original, lengthy discussion.--31dot 12:58, June 14, 2010 (UTC) Who is Wikia?. Is he a user here on Memory Alpha.--TyphussJediVader 00:00, June 15, 2010 (UTC) :It's a Wikia-wide bot. -- sulfur 03:04, June 15, 2010 (UTC) New User I am new to wiki and I never cited anything before. I made the mistake of uploading the image and now I messed everthing up. Can you give me tips on citing and how to fix it and avoid future mistakes? --Enterprise E-NCC-1701 01:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :I think most of what will help you can be found , (specifically the bottom portion) as this explains how the information on the image's page should be laid out. You may also want to review the image use policy to get a general idea of how images are used and can be uploaded.--31dot 01:41, June 20, 2010 (UTC) Thanks--Enterprise E-NCC-1701 03:28, June 20, 2010 (UTC) Bujold ref I removed your Bujold reference from the Performers approached for Star Trek roles page, as it is for those performers who were approached for a role on Star Trek only, and not those who were cast. Bujold was indeed cast as Janeway and filmed for a few days, so she was not merely approached. Information on her can be found in the Background section of Kathryn Janeway and at her article.--31dot 01:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC) I undid your removal of the Bujold reference from the Performers approached for Star Trek roles page. I respectfully contend that the exclusion of Geneviève Bujold from the page is incorrect, inconsistent, and compromises the integrity of the overall article. This article documents performers who were approached for a role but ultimately never appeared in the cast list for the aired episode. “Approached” in this context of the present article ranges from performers who were trekers but never approached by the producers (Dave Thomas) to performers who the producers wanted but couldn’t get (numerous), who were put under contract but never showed up (John Barrymore), and who made screen tests but failed to make the final cut (also numerous and Susan Gibney most notably). These examples differ from Jeffery Hunter, who was “approached” for the TOS Captain’s role and filmed a failed pilot (“The Cage”) but whose footage made it into the cast list of an aired episode ("The Menagerie”). In contrast, there is no cast list for an aired episode with the name “Geneviève Bujold” on it. She was approached by the producers (like many others) and put under contract (like Barrymore) but--after a day-and-a-half on set—departed and her footage remains on the cutting room floor. Compare her experience to Susan Gibney’s (who is included in the article): a performer who made several screen tests (on set, in costume, and with other cast members) but was rejected by the studio. How do the experiences of Bujold and Gibney differ? (Answer: they don’t) Furthermore, excluding Bujold from the article seriously compromises the thoroughness of the overall article. It is a significant casting “what if” that is presently undocumented in an otherwise comprehensive article—on par with the revelations found in stories of Gibney and Barrymore. --TRHickey 16:28, June 20, 2010 (UTC) :The article states that it is for "who have been approached for roles in the Star Trek franchise, but were ultimately not cast". If we want to change the scope of the article, we can, but as it is now I don't think such a description includes Bujold. I would contend that Barrymore (who was cast but did not show up) should not be there, either. Gibney was not cast for those roles, so her inclusion is fine.--31dot 16:42, June 20, 2010 (UTC)